TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the consignee is M/s. P.T. Impex of Calcutta and the consignment number is 257, dated October 28, 2000 and the same relates to 1,178 pieces of cowhide. In RN12 consignor is one Rahamatullah of Oriyabazar, Cuttack, and the consignee is M/s. Kaycee Trading, Calcutta and the consignment number is 270, dated October 27, 2000 and it relates to 540 pieces of cowhide. The petitionerdriver along with the said goods reached from Cuttack to Chichira outpost for entering in West Bengal. The driver produced for checking, all the documents including way bills which were found to be in order and the checkpost authorities duly endorsed the way bills and supplied one copy of the same to the driver and vehicle was allowed to move. As the vehicle reached Kharagpur proceeding along National Highway No. 6, it was intercepted by C.T.O., Kharagpur range (respondent No. 1) who detained the said vehicle after serving written detention order, dated December 23, 2000. All papers and documents including the driver's licence were taken by respondent No. 1 for verification. Despite repeated request for speedy verifica tion, as late on January 1, 2001, the petitioner was informed that the consigned goods ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December 25, 2000 as the driver fled away. It was only on January 1, 2001 the driver appeared. The requirement of handing over the seizure list to him became fruitful only on that date. The goods were given in safe custody of the driver as he opted to be custodian of the goods. As a matter of fact every document had been kept by the respondent after seizure. Therefore, it is contended that the seizure in this case has been lawfully made and the application should be dismissed. 4.. Only question for consideration is whether the seizure dated December 25, 2000 is lawful or not. 5.. The legal position is that before ordering seizure of goods, the authority must have to be satisfied on verification that the transportation of goods was being done in contravention of provision of the statute relating to the movement of goods. The condition precedent to the seizure must be such as to justify the subsequent seizure but the revenue cannot be allowed to make groping enquiries after seizure to justify the seizure. In this case admittedly the deten tion order, annexure A, to the application was passed by respondent No. 1 on December 23, 2000 at 5 p.m. The detention order shows that the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B and that was written in the absence of the driver. The applicant failed to file anything before us showing his presence there between the period December 24, 2000 to December 31, 2000. More over, the learned advocate at the time of hearing conceded that the seized goods were in the custody of the respondent No. 1 after the seizure. That is the reason for which the petitioner had to file petition here for release of the goods which prayer was allowed on furnishing cash security as per order dated January 1, 2001. So, the submission of the learned lawyer that the seizure was made not on December 25, 2000 but on January 1, 2001, does not hold water. His next argument assailing seizure is to the effect that the detention was made at 5 p.m. on December 23, 2000, which was Saturday; 24th December was Sunday and 25th was holiday. So the story that has been made out regarding telephonic conversation and knowledge acquired through telephonic conversation with C.T.O., Cuttack cannot but be false. It is the argument that even if some information had been received by the respondent No. 1 that must be anytime after December 25, 2000, that is, after the date of seizure and as such the seizure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantity, weight or value of the goods in any consignment is found by the authority referred to in subrule (9) to be at variance with the description, quantity, weight or value of goods disclosed in the way bill; or (b) the documents presented in respect of goods in any consignment is found by the authority referred to in subrule (9) to be false or incorrect, either in respect of the description, quantity or weight of such consignment of goods, or the value thereof, or (c) the consignor or consignee of the consignment of goods is shown to be a dealer registered under the Act, while the records available in the office of the appropriate assessing authority do not show the existence of such a dealer, such authority shall prepare a report in the presence of the driver or person incharge of the vehicle and get such report countersigned by him, or where the driver or person incharge of the vehicle is not available for any reason, such authority shall prepare a report in the presence of one witness after explaining to him the contents of the report and get the report countersigned by him, and shall thereafter seize the consignment of goods under section 70 for contravention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The information gathered over phone about the consignor being not a registered dealer at Cuttack, though mentioned as registered dealer in the document, cannot be deemed in law as a material whereupon respondent could have formed "the reason to believe" as required under section 70(1) of the Act 1994 that the goods in question have been imported into West Bengal in contraven tion of section 68 of the Act. In our considered view, in the context of the rule 212, the material discovered by C.T.O.can have no nexus with his formation of belief as made. So on the above ground, respondent No. 1 had no legal authority or justification to make the seizure as he has done. 7.. The another ground for seizure is to the effect that the C.T.O. by talking over phone with the authorities at Jamsolghat checkpost came to know that the vehicle with the load did not pass through that checkpost. Whether a vehicle did pass through a cer tain checkpost or not, in another State, before entering the jurisdic tion of the State of West Bengal can at best be considered as a piece of evidence only for corroborating the required reasonable belief of the officer that the goods are being transported in contraven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
